Fighter in need of tweaking for phb 6?

[tylermo]

Given the nice response to the thread regarding the rogue, I thought a discussion about the fighter was in order. I've never given it any thought, but there have been more than a few discussions about the fighter in C&C. I believe some of you have tinkered with the fighter in your campaigns. Is the fighter in the phb and ckg sufficient as written, or should the class be altered in the upcoming phb 6? Note...I'm not suggesting that Stephen will do this, but I'm curious where the C&C gurus (all of you's on the forum lol) stand on the topic.

[Rigon]

I think the only thing that would need to be changes is Combat Dominance. Other than that, I think the fighter is pretty solid as a class.

R-

[Arduin]

I think the only thing that would need to be changes is Combat Dominance. Other than that, I think the fighter is pretty solid as a class.

R-

I'm going to test out a change in that. The Fighter can use it against opponents who are 3 or more HD lower than himself.

[jdizzy001]

I think the fighter is a solid class. however, I would like to see combat dominance scale. something like CD is usable on monsters whose HD is = up to one half the fighter's class.

Or just award the fighter cleave instead of CD.

[Treebore]

Whether they change it or not, I'll still be sticking to the changes in my House Rules. Unless, of course, those are the changes the Trolls incorporate. Which we all know won't happen, so...

[Lord Dynel]

I'll keep my fingers crossed that the fighter remains as-is. He's got a pretty solid base. Every time I've seen one in action, I've never seen any need for a change. I always suggest those who have never played one (or have but not more than a level or two) to give them a good, solid run. If you still think they need a tweaking, then that's cool. I only say this because I, too, at one point thought they were a little underwhelming. Until I saw one played multiple levels. Then I changed my mind. Your mileage may respectively vary, of course.

[Treebore]

Mileage does vary. I've played fighters several times in C&C, ran them several times using my house rules, and by the book, their +2 or so to hit and damage, depending on level and specialization, just doesn't measure up to Paladins or Knights or Barbarians. Plus their Combat Dominance occurs far too rarely. So I made Combat Dominance apply at any time, against any level, as long as they are fighting 3 or more opponents at one time, and when it happens, they kick butt. Plus usually take a beating while doing it, because their opponents usually have Flanking bonus, and even attacking from behind bonus, while they do it. Is it over powered? Not in my experience. When they are able to do it they are like a Mage throwing a 3d6 Fireball in a 5 foot radius around themselves. Not all that powerful, but still pretty cool.

[Relaxo]

I'm going to test out a change in that. The Fighter can use it against opponents who are 3 or more HD lower than himself.

I was gong to say don't change a thing, but this might be a good idea. or maybe ater level 6 it starts working on 5 or fewer less.HD

[Lord Dynel]

Mileage does vary. I've played fighters several times in C&C, ran them several times using my house rules, and by the book, their +2 or so to hit and damage, depending on level and specialization, just doesn't measure up to Paladins or Knights or Barbarians. Plus their Combat Dominance occurs far too rarely. So I made Combat Dominance apply at any time, against any level, as long as they are fighting 3 or more opponents at one time, and when it happens, they kick butt. Plus usually take a beating while doing it, because their opponents usually have Flanking bonus, and even attacking from behind bonus, while they do it. Is it over powered? Not in my experience. When they are able to do it they are like a Mage throwing a 3d6 Fireball in a 5 foot radius around themselves. Not all that powerful, but still pretty cool.

Understandable. This is where I think fighters should remain relatively basic. Tree makes an excellent example of this. He's able to add something to his fighters which make them more viable for his game. For me, not only do I prefer them as written, I happen to think they work fine as is. One thing I've learned in my years running d20, if nothing else, is that printed material is often considered gospel by players. So if they (the players) read, "the fighter can do X cool-tastic ability" then they will want to use that ability, whether the GM/CK wants them to or not. Now, I know, the CK is the final authority. I'm one of those people who like to keep the game relatively basic, because that allows for the individual CK's to alter whatever he wants, how he sees fit for his individual game. Tree, and some others, have been apparently for a while and it seems to be working out for him. I haven't added anything to them, and they work for me, too.

I guess it also comes down to who wants to have the work load put on them. In a similar example, from the other point-of-view...illusionist healing spells. Now that they're in the book, I've had to write them out. I didn't have to offer replacement spells, but I did anyway. But every time a player looks over my house rules, I get a question somewhere along the lines of, "why can't we use illusionist healing spells?" If they weren't there, I wouldn't get the questions, the class wouldn't have that aspect of it that I (and probably others) find to be a bit of a stretch, but I would not have had to do any extra work (spell writing & explaining), either. Those who like them use the rules and book as-is, with no issue. This is kind of like how I view the fighter. If it gets changes, I'll look over the changes. If I like them, I'll use them...if not, I'll change them back to the way they are now. I know a lot of it depends on the popular opinion of the class. I'm sure however it gets changed, they'll be someone, somewhere, who doesn't like them. And they have the power to change it.

[Arduin]

I'm going to test out a change in that. The Fighter can use it against opponents who are 3 or more HD lower than himself.

I was gong to say don't change a thing, but this might be a good idea. or maybe ater level 6 it starts working on 5 or fewer less.HD

I was looking at something that scaled with level.

[neowolf]

I'm pretty content with the Fighter as is. I really enjoyed the last game I played in as a Halfling Fighter, and never felt like I fell behind.

[mbeacom]

Love the fighter as is. No changes necessary. I think any character class that puts more of the onus on the player to be creative (as opposed to offering more and diverse mechanics) can seem underwhelming if you don't have particularly creative players. Perhaps I'm blessed as my players have a great time with the fighter and they've never fallen behind, even in long campaigns.

[Treebore]

Love the fighter as is. No changes necessary. I think any character class that puts more of the onus on the player to be creative (as opposed to offering more and diverse mechanics) can seem underwhelming if you don't have particularly creative players. Perhaps I'm blessed as my players have a great time with the fighter and they've never fallen behind, even in long campaigns.

To me its not necessarily a matter of "falling behind". Its a matter of not being as cool as the other fighter type classes in the first place. Do fighters get to add a bonus to his allies equal to his CHA mod? Nope. Does he get a permanent Protection from Evil? Nope. Is he immune to Disease or get to Cure Disease or do any kind of healing? Nope. What does a Fighter get? Up to a +2 to hit and damage with one weapon, a +1 to BtH, and multiple attacks versus 1 HD creatures at 4th level, until 10th level, then they get a second attack per round. So just an underwhelming class from the start. Still, been pretty easy to spruce up with some simple modifications.

[Peter]

Could give him the smash attack he had in BECMI.

Here is my rendition.

SMASH: At 9th level, a fighter can smash an opponent with all his might. The opponent must be selected during initiative and the fighter must attack last. The fighter makes an attack against the opponent with a -5 penalty to hit. If the attack succeeds the fighter may add their strength score to the damage done by the attack, as well as adding their strength bonus as normal. Smashing requires a full round and does not stack with any other abilities.

[Lord Dynel]

Love the fighter as is. No changes necessary. I think any character class that puts more of the onus on the player to be creative (as opposed to offering more and diverse mechanics) can seem underwhelming if you don't have particularly creative players. Perhaps I'm blessed as my players have a great time with the fighter and they've never fallen behind, even in long campaigns.

To me its not necessarily a matter of "falling behind". Its a matter of not being as cool as the other fighter type classes in the first place. Do fighters get to add a bonus to his allies equal to his CHA mod? Nope. Does he get a permanent Protection from Evil? Nope. Is he immune to Disease or get to Cure Disease or do any kind of healing? Nope. What does a Fighter get? Up to a +2 to hit and damage with one weapon, a +1 to BtH, and multiple attacks versus 1 HD creatures at 4th level, until 10th level, then they get a second attack per round. So just an underwhelming class from the start. Still, been pretty easy to spruce up with some simple modifications.

Well said, mbeacom. But I can definitely understand where Tree is coming from. I don't intend this to sound derogatory (and my apologies if it comes off that way) but I feel his issues are on his end. Meaning, it's not an inherent problem with the class. Tree doesn't feel the class has enough "umph" and I can see his point, even if I don't necessarily agree. That's why I think it's best to keep the class relatively basic in its nature. Not only does that maintain the base flexibility of the class, it allows for easy "table fixes" and house rules for the individual CKs. I've always felt it's easier to add to a class than it is to take away...as he said, it's easy to modify the class to spruce it up. The comparison Tree makes with the paladin is definitely valid - though the paladin has a strict moral code he has to maintain and more XP to gain per level in trade for those nifty abilities.

[Treebore]

I think it also has to do with how we run our games. I find it pretty much a complete waste of time to use 1 HD creatures when the group starts to get to about 5th level. Right after the level fighters even begin to pick up Combat Dominance. I am far more likely to use creatures with 2 or more HD. So in my games Fighters will rarely ever even get to use Combat Dominance. So a totally wasted ability in my games. Because I think each of their Class abilities should have the potential of being used in any encounter, just like the abilities of every other class do. Plus I have always had a thing for pictures of fighters wading into large numbers of enemies and cutting them all down as they try to cut you down. My current House Rule, which I call "Mass Combat Dominance" not only makes it useful, period, while at great risk to the Fighter, but also allows them to do precisely what I imagined.

So with my house rule, their Class ability of Combat Dominance will be able to be used in every single encounter, because the HD of their opponents no longer matters, and they get to be the combat machine I like to envision them as.

[mbeacom]

I think it also has to do with how we run our games. I find it pretty much a complete waste of time to use 1 HD creatures when the group starts to get to about 5th level. Right after the level fighters even begin to pick up Combat Dominance. I am far more likely to use creatures with 2 or more HD. So in my games Fighters will rarely ever even get to use Combat Dominance. So a totally wasted ability in my games. Because I think each of their Class abilities should have the potential of being used in any encounter, just like the abilities of every other class do. Plus I have always had a thing for pictures of fighters wading into large numbers of enemies and cutting them all down as they try to cut you down. My current House Rule, which I call "Mass Combat Dominance" not only makes it useful, period, while at great risk to the Fighter, but also allows them to do precisely what I imagined.

So with my house rule, their Class ability of Combat Dominance will be able to be used in every single encounter, because the HD of their opponents no longer matters, and they get to be the combat machine I like to envision them as.

Are you saying you make sure that something causes disease in every encounter your Paladin is in? Because we sure don't play that way. We've never had the expectation that "each of their Class abilities should have the potential of being used in any encounter". Quite the opposite actually. We've played with the expectation that the more powerful an ability is, the less frequently it should come into play. I guess I never really thought of it like that. I suppose if you expect every power or ability to be relevant in every encounter, the Fighter certainly might seem underwhelming. But if you don't think about it that way they're honestly pretty awesome. Their basic bonus advantage and multiple attacks basically mean that creative players have a better chance at pretty much every single thing they do in combat. Everything. That's pretty awesome. Almost over powered in practice in my games. And once players figure that out, they're trying all sorts of crazy attacks because they have a better chance at succeeding.

[mbeacom]

Love the fighter as is. No changes necessary. I think any character class that puts more of the onus on the player to be creative (as opposed to offering more and diverse mechanics) can seem underwhelming if you don't have particularly creative players. Perhaps I'm blessed as my players have a great time with the fighter and they've never fallen behind, even in long campaigns.

To me its not necessarily a matter of "falling behind". Its a matter of not being as cool as the other fighter type classes in the first place. Do fighters get to add a bonus to his allies equal to his CHA mod? Nope. Does he get a permanent Protection from Evil? Nope. Is he immune to Disease or get to Cure Disease or do any kind of healing? Nope. What does a Fighter get? Up to a +2 to hit and damage with one weapon, a +1 to BtH, and multiple attacks versus 1 HD creatures at 4th level, until 10th level, then they get a second attack per round. So just an underwhelming class from the start. Still, been pretty easy to spruce up with some simple modifications.

Well said, mbeacom. But I can definitely understand where Tree is coming from. I don't intend this to sound derogatory (and my apologies if it comes off that way) but I feel his issues are on his end. Meaning, it's not an inherent problem with the class. Tree doesn't feel the class has enough "umph" and I can see his point, even if I don't necessarily agree. That's why I think it's best to keep the class relatively basic in its nature. Not only does that maintain the base flexibility of the class, it allows for easy "table fixes" and house rules for the individual CKs. I've always felt it's easier to add to a class than it is to take away...as he said, it's easy to modify the class to spruce it up. The comparison Tree makes with the paladin is definitely valid - though the paladin has a strict moral code he has to maintain and more XP to gain per level in trade for those nifty abilities.

Agreed. I can see where tree's coming from. A basic and flexible class like the C&C Fighter is not to everyones taste. Some people just want more design, more mechanics, more programmed nuance to tell you what a class can and can't do. To me, that's kind of the antithesis of the what the Fighter class is supposed to be, but that's just my opinion. I respect other opinions on it. I think the Fighter shines in the hands of the creative player, but probably feels somewhat dull in the hands of someone who is purely playing their character sheet (our groups calls fighter play of this type "chopping wood" because it's boring and repetitive). I've seen it many times at other peoples tables, where little gets attempted that the rules don't suggest by creating mechanics. If the character sheet doesn't say "you can do this and this in such and such situation", they simply don't do/try it. But at my tables, it's not that way. The Fighter is a perfect design for player who chafe at such guidance and see it more as a hindrance than a help. So yeah, I agree, leave it basic and flexible so that anyone can do with it what they like. It's easier to bolt on a new ability or enhance an existing one than it is to rebalance the entire game around a newly developed class structure then have players trying to rip out those parts and still have an effective class.

[Treebore]

I think it also has to do with how we run our games. I find it pretty much a complete waste of time to use 1 HD creatures when the group starts to get to about 5th level. Right after the level fighters even begin to pick up Combat Dominance. I am far more likely to use creatures with 2 or more HD. So in my games Fighters will rarely ever even get to use Combat Dominance. So a totally wasted ability in my games. Because I think each of their Class abilities should have the potential of being used in any encounter, just like the abilities of every other class do. Plus I have always had a thing for pictures of fighters wading into large numbers of enemies and cutting them all down as they try to cut you down. My current House Rule, which I call "Mass Combat Dominance" not only makes it useful, period, while at great risk to the Fighter, but also allows them to do precisely what I imagined.

So with my house rule, their Class ability of Combat Dominance will be able to be used in every single encounter, because the HD of their opponents no longer matters, and they get to be the combat machine I like to envision them as.

Are you saying you make sure that something causes disease in every encounter your Paladin is in? Because we sure don't play that way. We've never had the expectation that "each of their Class abilities should have the potential of being used in any encounter". Quite the opposite actually. We've played with the expectation that the more powerful an ability is, the less frequently it should come into play. I guess I never really thought of it like that. I suppose if you expect every power or ability to be relevant in every encounter, the Fighter certainly might seem underwhelming. But if you don't think about it that way they're honestly pretty awesome. Their basic bonus advantage and multiple attacks basically mean that creative players have a better chance at pretty much every single thing they do in combat. Everything. That's pretty awesome. Almost over powered in practice in my games. And once players figure that out, they're trying all sorts of crazy attacks because they have a better chance at succeeding.

The potential that Disease can become "in play" is there with every encounter. Its just up to CK's as to whether or not it will. AQs for the fighter, they are a fighter, and their ability to fight should come into play, potentially, in every single encounter, regardless of monster HD used. Personally I don't get why people are so against making the fighter be more of a fighter. No wonder why people complain about Mages being over powered, people don't even want to let a fighter be a fighter.

[mbeacom]

I think it also has to do with how we run our games. I find it pretty much a complete waste of time to use 1 HD creatures when the group starts to get to about 5th level. Right after the level fighters even begin to pick up Combat Dominance. I am far more likely to use creatures with 2 or more HD. So in my games Fighters will rarely ever even get to use Combat Dominance. So a totally wasted ability in my games. Because I think each of their Class abilities should have the potential of being used in any encounter, just like the abilities of every other class do. Plus I have always had a thing for pictures of fighters wading into large numbers of enemies and cutting them all down as they try to cut you down. My current House Rule, which I call "Mass Combat Dominance" not only makes it useful, period, while at great risk to the Fighter, but also allows them to do precisely what I imagined.

So with my house rule, their Class ability of Combat Dominance will be able to be used in every single encounter, because the HD of their opponents no longer matters, and they get to be the combat machine I like to envision them as.

Are you saying you make sure that something causes disease in every encounter your Paladin is in? Because we sure don't play that way. We've never had the expectation that "each of their Class abilities should have the potential of being used in any encounter". Quite the opposite actually. We've played with the expectation that the more powerful an ability is, the less frequently it should come into play. I guess I never really thought of it like that. I suppose if you expect every power or ability to be relevant in every encounter, the Fighter certainly might seem underwhelming. But if you don't think about it that way they're honestly pretty awesome. Their basic bonus advantage and multiple attacks basically mean that creative players have a better chance at pretty much every single thing they do in combat. Everything. That's pretty awesome. Almost over powered in practice in my games. And once players figure that out, they're trying all sorts of crazy attacks because they have a better chance at succeeding.

The potential that Disease can become "in play" is there with every encounter. Its just up to CK's as to whether or not it will. AQs for the fighter, they are a fighter, and their ability to fight should come into play, potentially, in every single encounter, regardless of monster HD used. Personally I don't get why people are so against making the fighter be more of a fighter. No wonder why people complain about Mages being over powered, people don't even want to let a fighter be a fighter.

But this is true of enemy hit dice as well. I actually think changing the fighter makes it less of a fighter, not more. But I admit, it's subjective. The point I'm making is that its easier to add stuff if you find the Fighter boring and it's basic flexibility is part of what makes it so great. To change that would make it less like what I want a Fighter to be. I don't think the Fighter should an all singing all dancing class. I think he should be better at combat effectiveness through a better hit progression along with some cool abilities to combat mooks plus more attacks as they attain higher levels. Also, they should have almost no limits on their actions. I think something like a Paladin or Knight should get some other things to make them more specific but that should be combined with limits to what they can do as is the case. This just makes sense to me. But I get that some people don't like simple flexibility. They want the game to tell them more of what they can and can't do.

[mbeacom]

I think it also has to do with how we run our games. I find it pretty much a complete waste of time to use 1 HD creatures when the group starts to get to about 5th level. Right after the level fighters even begin to pick up Combat Dominance. I am far more likely to use creatures with 2 or more HD. So in my games Fighters will rarely ever even get to use Combat Dominance. So a totally wasted ability in my games. Because I think each of their Class abilities should have the potential of being used in any encounter, just like the abilities of every other class do. Plus I have always had a thing for pictures of fighters wading into large numbers of enemies and cutting them all down as they try to cut you down. My current House Rule, which I call "Mass Combat Dominance" not only makes it useful, period, while at great risk to the Fighter, but also allows them to do precisely what I imagined.

So with my house rule, their Class ability of Combat Dominance will be able to be used in every single encounter, because the HD of their opponents no longer matters, and they get to be the combat machine I like to envision them as.

Are you saying you make sure that something causes disease in every encounter your Paladin is in? Because we sure don't play that way. We've never had the expectation that "each of their Class abilities should have the potential of being used in any encounter". Quite the opposite actually. We've played with the expectation that the more powerful an ability is, the less frequently it should come into play. I guess I never really thought of it like that. I suppose if you expect every power or ability to be relevant in every encounter, the Fighter certainly might seem underwhelming. But if you don't think about it that way they're honestly pretty awesome. Their basic bonus advantage and multiple attacks basically mean that creative players have a better chance at pretty much every single thing they do in combat. Everything. That's pretty awesome. Almost over powered in practice in my games. And once players figure that out, they're trying all sorts of crazy attacks because they have a better chance at succeeding.

The potential that Disease can become "in play" is there with every encounter. Its just up to CK's as to whether or not it will. AQs for the fighter, they are a fighter, and their ability to fight should come into play, potentially, in every single encounter, regardless of monster HD used. Personally I don't get why people are so against making the fighter be more of a fighter. No wonder why people complain about Mages being over powered, people don't even want to let a fighter be a fighter.

But this is true of enemy hit dice as well. I actually think changing the fighter makes it less of a fighter, not more. But I admit, it's subjective. The point I'm making is that its easier to add stuff if you find the Fighter boring and it's basic flexibility is part of what makes it so great. To change that would make it less like what I want a Fighter to be. I don't think the Fighter should an all singing all dancing class. I think he should be better at combat effectiveness through a better hit progression along with some cool abilities to combat mooks plus more attacks as they attain higher levels. Also, they should have almost no limits on their actions. I think something like a Paladin or Knight should get some other things to make them more specific but that should be combined with limits to what they can do as is the case. This just makes sense to me. But I get that some people don't like simple flexibility. They want the game to tell them more of what they can and can't do.Personally, I use a lot of 1HD monsters in my campaigns. The world doesn't really "level up" because the players do. Yes, they go places with higher level threats, but the lower level ones don't disappear and they're frequently in the way, on the way to the higher level ones. Then again, I rarely use disease or many undead in my games so perhaps Paladins would seem boring in my games and need some sprucing up.